1977 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 205/B of 1976, decided on 14th June 1975,

S. 497(5)‑Bail, cancellation of‑Cancellation of petitioners bail sought on ground of his issuing threats to prosecution witnesses-- Allegations, however, vague in nature and role ascribed to petitioner limited to instigating and handing over loaded gun to co‑accused Interference with bail order of lower Court declined, in circumstances. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan for the Petitioner. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa for the Respondent No. 1. M. A. Naqvi for the State. The Police Officer has shown to the Court the statements of Bashir Ahmad, Rehmat Ali, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Tufail and Sher Muhammad P. Ws. recorded in connection with the complainant's allegation that respondent Akhtar has been threatening them. Muhammad Shafi is not cited in the 'F. I. R. as an eye‑witness but the others are Bashir Ahmad stated that on 18‑5‑1976 he found the respondent and others lying in wait for him at which he ran away. But he had not reported the matter to the police. Rehmat Ali complained that the respondent had stared at him in the Court of Session, Muhammad Tufail alleged that he had been threatened directly and also through his son but he did not mention as to who had extended the threat. Sher Muhammad stated that 10/12 days before when he was ploughing with his tractor, the respondent met him and threatened him in case the witness deposed against him. Obviously, the allegations are rather vague. It also appears that Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Shafi and Sher Muhammad stated that they had made the allegation at the instance of the complainant. I, therefore, find no justification for interference with the order dated 8‑1‑1976 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal. 2. Learned counsel then argued for cancellation of the bail on merits. I find that although there is no mention in the F. I. R., the investigation revealed the presence of a sharp‑edged injury, though of simple nature, upon the person of co‑accused Riaz. One Mahboob Ali, who had been examined by the police, had stated that the deceased had attacked Riaz with hatchet‑since the presence of the injury is not mentioned in the F. I. R. and also because the allegation against the respondent is that of having instigated Riaz by handing him over the loaded gun. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the lower Court granting him bail. The petition is, therefore dismissed.